On 11/5/2012 12:26 AM, Nevin Liber wrote:
On 4 November 2012 14:42, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57@comcast.net> wrote:
Stephan T. Lavavej. He's a standard library guy at MS. He's around here from time to time, but also makes C++-related videos for MS's Channel 9 PDM (propaganda distribution mechanism).
So by propaganda you mean making high quality (both in material and production values) videos freely available to the C++ community? Kudos to Microsoft for that! Bring it on!
I'm sorry, but most of the content on C9 is *blantantly* propaganda. Moreso, the general vibe I get from it is that the entire intent of C9 is marketing driven, not community outreach driven. Now, I did say most, not all, content. STL's videos are good. Some conference talks are okay--such as Bjarne's recent one. The content of those do not come off as propaganda.
As I see it, Herb is trying to bring together the C++ community, and unfortunately, you seem to be trying to drive a wedge into it.
No, I'm not. The argument I'm making, perhaps poorly, is that there is one thing more than any other that is needed for C++: for C++ users to be able to target the standard rather than compilers. So the dependency graph is compiler -> standard user -> standard rather than compiler -> standard user -> compiler The reason the latter is bad and leads to a lack of portable libraries is that it isn't just one user with one compiler. Instead it is more like millions of users and a bunch of compilers. With just two of each, you currently get: compiler(1) -> standard compiler(2) -> standard user(1) -> { compiler(1) compiler(2) } user(2) -> { compiler(1) compiler(2) } to create a stable portable library base. This grows untenably, especially when one takes into account extension copying, non-compiler C++ tools, etc.. This gets way worse. In fact, it is usually more like: ... user(1) -> { compiler(1) } user(2) -> { compiler(2) compiler(3) } user(3) -> { compiler(1) compiler(4) } ... However, it doesn't *have* to because it could be: { compiler-or-tool(1...inf) user(1...inf) } -> standard For that to occur, extensions to the language should be downplayed in the extreme and only used when absolutely necessary and encapsulated to the greatest degree possible rather than promoted and contantly advertised. Also for that to occur, compilers need to correctly implement C++ in the limit.
You've made a straw man argument about altruism, even though Herb specifically said on Friday that the reason companies are contributing to the Standard C++ Foundation is that it makes good business sense for them, so I certainly don't see where *anybody*, let alone Herb, is claiming companies are sponsoring this out of the goodness of their hearts (if you have a counter link, I'd appreciate seeing it).
I don't have any problem with this foundation at all. I don't have a problem with MS funding it or any of the other companies funding it. At the same time, I don't yet know exactly what it is supposed to do or how successful it will be at whatever that is. I.e. my argument has nothing to do with the foundation or isocpp.org. Instead, it is years and years of MS saying the same thing, but not doing it, and also years of flat-out saying they *won't* implement some part of the standard. Sure, they do it for the big marketable features. There was no doubt they would implement variadic templates, for example. What I and many others want to hear from MS is the following, "We are going to implement all of the C++11 features and implement/fix all of the C++98 features which haven't been removed by C++11 (export)." And then go about actually doing that. I don't care if that takes five years. I don't care if the preprocessor issues are last on that list. WRT to propaganda, we have several years of Herb mentioning how we've dropped the ball on UI innovation suddenly followed by Metro coupled with a closed-platform app store. We also have several years of proselytizing that the future is distributed cloud-based computing followed by Azure. Sorry, when someone that was supposedly going to be "holding Microsoft accountable," starts constantly bringing up these types of things right before a big new marketing compaign, the respect and trust that I had from back in the GotW days deteriorates--so much so that even when he makes offhand comments about big touch screens I consider it to be nothing more than planned marketing--similarly for the near constant "beautiful modern apps." Even if I'm wrong, that is my perception and the perception of *many*, and if it is actually supposed to be "bring the community together" *it* is doing the exact opposite--not me. In that last announcement talk alone together with the follow-up Q & A there are numerous "subtle" bits of marketing. The entire general trend is one of attempting to turn a product (software) into a service. That is an anti-consumer nickle-and-dime model which is just as anti-consumer as trying to trick people that can't afford something into making payments. It is just as anti-consumer as many other related things occurring in the software industry nowadays--microtransactions being one of them.
I see incredibly obvious, not hidden agendas. Full disclosure: I work for one of the founding members of the Standard C++ Foundation.
Oh, don't worry. I also see incredibly obvious agendas. As I said, however, I have no problem with the foundation at present. The only thing about it I believe is questionable is Herb's presence on the board of directors--and that is because I do not trust Herb. Other than having met him a few times, I don't know Herb so I can't go off of personal knowledge of his integrity, and if it was just Herb, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But I won't give MS the benefit of the doubt given their history. Why, at this point, would it be rational for *anyone* to take what MS says at face value? I don't know enough about the others (except Beman and Bjarne which are people that I do trust--even if I violently disagree with Bjarne about certain things) to have a say one way or another.
Even with Beman as one of the directors of the C++ Standard Foundation, you still want to encourage us to fear and doubt the effort?
I'm specifically referring to VC++, MS's apparent general marketing strategy and how that affects VC++, and how MS's resulting behavior WRT to VC++ is actually harmful to C++ in general. I am not saying that *every* action that MS takes is harmful, I'm not saying that individual members of the VC++ team are untalented or unethical, and I am not saying that the foundation is harmful. For the latter, time will tell. There are politics and factions to some degree within committee. I'll reserve judgement until after I've seen that it doesn't turn into a one-party outlet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting that, but it could happen. Regards, Paul Mensonides